The more confusing the financial world gets, the easier it is to understand and forecast by my two very simple rules in evaluating an asset's future. Only two questions to ask:
1) Is the value real or perceived? 2) Is it sustainable?
Apply those rules to residential real estate in 2006. How about the dot com boom?
These asset bubbles have grown and collapsed basically because question number one fails. Up next for evaluation? The U.S. Dollar.
One thing about the internet, is it never forgets. And if you look back at my xanga blog and even this one, it looks like I can see the future with amazing clarity. It's not that hard. You don't need financial analysts at Goldman Sachs or the Federal Reserve's propaganda to confuse you with their ridiculous forecasts that make the subject of youtube comedy videos.
You can always steer clear by my two basic questions. Yes the world economy is beginning to grow, especially the emerging countries. This is because the world is repurposing itself away from the U.S. consumer. China is going to take all of that manufacturing capacity and it is going to be absorbed by the urbanization of the 1 billion rice farmers who have yet to turn a car motor or eat a tortilla chip. That potential market is 1) of true value and 2) sustainable.
The U.S. consumer, with double digit unemployment, and a government with a debt that is equal to its GDP has no true value (for China's manufacturing infrastructure or for other world exporters to plan on) nor is its growth sustainable. For the U.S. to go saying that it is part of the world's recovery party but it's going to be "muted" is daydreaming.
I like life simple. And applying simple, common sense formulas to complex problems gives me a lot of clarity. And if you look at my investing record, the clues as to how I got here is simple. Two simple questions.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
69 comments:
My home:
30 days: +0.8%
1 Year: -8.5%
5 Years: +22.7%
10 Years: +69.6
Oh and we've been living in it for 12 years, getting a tax writeoff for the interest, raising a family, growing vegetables, running several businesses...
Gold? Value? Not so much. :)
The bible predicted all this thousands of years ago, a lot sooner than you did Gary.
Here is what the Bible has to say about the signs of the end times. I know that you and others don't believe the Bible, but get ready to see the end times unfold before your eyes. I may be wrong, but I feel that we are witnessing the end times and Jesus will be coming back for His church very soon! Almost all prophecy is fulfilled.
* Universal apostasy (2 Thessalonians 2:1-4)
* The watering down of the gospel, teaching the doctrines of man rather than those of God. (2 Tim 3:5, Matt 15:9)
* False prophets and false Christs (Matthew 24:24)
* Good will be called evil and evil good. (Isaiah 5:20)
* Restoration of all things (Acts 3:19-21)
* Gospel to be preached to all the world, this wasn't even possible until this current generation (Matthew 24:14, Revelations 14:6-7)
* Worldly knowledge to increase (Daniel 12:4)
* Israel to be restored as a political state (Deuteronomy 28:64, 30:3 Jeremiah 29:14, 30:3 Isaiah
43:5-6, Ezekiel 36:24, Amos 9:14-15
* Earthquakes, floods, famines, plagues and diseases such as the world has never seen.
(Matthew 24 and Luke 21)
* Peace taken from the earth. Wars increase throughout the earth until war is on every land
(Matthew 24 and Luke 21)
* Increase in the wickedness, murder and crime among men. Increase in belief in the occult.
(Matthew 24, Luke 21, 2 Timothy 3:1-5, 4:3-4)
* People will not believe the signs (2 Peter 3:3-4, Matthew 16:1-4)
* Increase in persecution of the Christians (Matthew 24:9, Mark 13:9)
you people and your superstitions.
Gary tries to talk about ECONOMIC DATA and all you have are the writings from a long dead culture, taken out of context to try and make predictions about the future.
Hubris and idiocy, perfectly combined.
Go rapture already. We can't wait.
fjblau...did you read what I wrote? What is superstitious about it? Gary posted his way of predicting what is happening in the world, and I posted scriptures telling the signs of the end times.
Gary's is based on data and yours is based on superstition.
Nothing weird about that.
So, you are saying that what was prophesied in the Bible is not happening?
The world isn't turning from religion?
There aren't false prophets?
Worldly knowledge isn't increasing?
Is it a superstition that Israel is a country?
There aren't Earthquakes, floods, famines, plagues and diseases?
Are you saying that all of these things are superstition?
So, you are saying that what was prophesied in the Bible is not happening?
-Yes.
The world isn't turning from religion?
- What does this even MEAN?
There aren't false prophets?
- Oh, there are lots of them. I don't know of any TRUE ones.
Worldly knowledge isn't increasing?
- It certainly is. Not that it matters to tue superstitious.
Is it a superstition that Israel is a country?
- No.
There aren't Earthquakes, floods, famines, plagues and diseases?
- Yes there are. They've been around a lot longer than the Bible.
Are you saying that all of these things are superstition?
- See above.
If I predict there will be war, famine, earthquakes and disease, does that make me a prophet too?
I predict you will write back.
I tell you what Tim... lets go with just one prophecy. You can pick it.
Here are the qualifications:
1. It must have been said BEFORE the event it is claiming to have predicted. The burden of proof is on you to prove that it was actually spoken/written before the event. But I think you can agree that a prophecy spoken after the event happened isn't really a prophecy, right?
2. It has to be specific. It can't be a vague "shit's gonna happen" sort of prophecy. If it has room for multiple fulfillments, I think we can agree its not a very good prophecy. I'm not interested in debating the MEANING of a prophecy... I want an example of one that doesn't need explaining.
3. It should be for something that wasn't just obviously going to happen.
So there you have it, lets hear what you consider a bona fide prophecy.
* People will not believe the signs (2 Peter 3:3-4, Matthew 16:1-4)
Frank...these scriptures refer to people like you:):):)
It's true that many of the things have being going on but (Earthquakes, floods, famines, plagues and diseases such as the world has never seen)it will become much worse then ever before, and all prophecy has to be fulfilled before the second coming. You don't have to believe it, but be OPEN-MINDED to that there is a possibility that it is true.
"People will not believe the signs"
Fails for Reason #3.
Do you have a biblical prophecy you would like to discuss?
The Prophet Frank (who is now 1 for 1)
Are you open-minded as to the existence of purple unicorns?
Just checking to make sure you're as open minded as you're asking me to be. :)
OMG it's 2006 all over again! I prophesied this would happen!
I vote for Gary for Sainthood.
I mean, that's all it takes, right?
My point about being open-minded is to point out that you aren't open-minded at all, and that you use that term close-minded against Christians, implying that you aren't close-minded and that we are, but in truth you are just as close-minded as you would accuse us of being:):):)
Gary.......???????
You're right Tim, I am closed-minded to superstition and ancient cults.
Sue me.
That's all I needed to hear! In the past you and Gary have accused me and other Christians of being close-minded. You can call God a superstition, but there will be a day that you will meet Him face to face, and then you will realize that you made a monumental mistake. It won't be that long considering our life is so short.
You are using an age-old philosophical argument Tim... and not one that sways me.
Because what if YOU are wrong? Or what if you just got the wrong god? A life of obedience to a non-existent superstition, devoid of intellectual curiosity and skeptical analysis... what is that worth?
To me, you are already living in a metaphorical hell (as they all are).
We agree that our lives are short. Too short to spend them believing in pink unicorns and pixie dust as meaningful entities, I say.
But that's just me... you are obviously free to believe whatever gives you peace. But don't expect me to acquiesce when you start preaching its nonsense in discussions about more rational subjects like economics.
Frank,
You call what I believe a superstition, and I call what you accept as fact to really be fiction:):):)
Frank,
I am totally confident in my belief, nothing would ever sway me away from my faith in God. I disagree with your characterization that I'm living in a metaphorical hell. I live a life of freedom in God's mercy and grace. In God's presence there is freedom, in His presence there is healing, in His presence there is deliverance.
In the end you like everyone of us make a decision to follow Christ or follow the world, you have chosen to follow the world, and that's your choice and I'm not going to condemn you for it. It's okay to be a skeptic, but by the end of your life you will never have answers to life's most important questions without God(where did we come from? is there life after death? where did the vast universe come from?). You see you can have certain extremely limited facts but without all the facts you really have nothing do you? The bible says in 2 Corinthians 13:12 12For now we are looking in a mirror that gives only a dim (blurred) reflection [of reality as in a riddle or enigma], but then [when perfection comes] we shall see in reality and face to face! Now I know in part (imperfectly), but then I shall know and understand fully and clearly, even in the same manner as I have been fully and clearly known and understood [by God]. This is from the Amplified Version
You have chosen to believe that God is superstition, but I have experienced that God is real. You chose to accept the extremely limited knowledge about the universe, which man has used to create a theory of the history of the universe, this theory has been repeated enough that it is now accepted by many as how the universe actually came to be. I have seen TV specials about dinosaurs and the universe and never have I heard the mention that their account of how things came about was just a theory, it is always presented as if it was fact and not just man's theory.
You have every right to chose to follow the ways of the world, just like I have the right to chose to follow Christ, but you are not justified in making fun of how I believe. I have never made of fun of your decision that you have made in your life, but on many occasions you have called us Christians (nut cases, idiots, etc...) You aren't a nut case, or an idiot, but I do feel that you have made a decision based on unprovable theories that have been accepted by many as fact.
"I have seen TV specials about dinosaurs and the universe and never have I heard the mention that their account of how things came about was just a theory, it is always presented as if it was fact and not just man's theory."
You need to watch something other than Christian TV.
You keep using the words "fact" and "theory" as if you even know what they mean, when by your words it is obvious you have no clue as to what they mean and how they are used in scientific discourse. We really don't need to redo the whole creationist/natural science argument until you understand that... if ever.
And PS... its not god that I find superstitious... its your bible. I find the idea of god to be mysterious and unknowable, and yet I do feel there are things larger than ourselves that we should both appreciate and respect. Your bible is just one purported way of doing that... mind you, one FILLED with superstition, dread, hubris and just plain icky hatred towards fellow human beings... and not one that encourages the intellect and curiosity we have been graced with.
Ps: when my mirror is dim and blurred, I wipe it off and am able to see things much clearer... It doesn't take bibles, faith or god... it takes the courage, time, foresight and tools to do so without worrying about the scary apparitions you MIGHT see.
There you go again, I don't even know what a fact is and what theory is?
A fact is something that is known to be true by actual experience or observation. Example 1 + 1 = 2
A theory is a tested concept that explains a range of observations. I could give you a more precise definition, but in essence the above is really what it is.
In many cases a theory is actually an assumption based on limited information or knowledge.
In science, an accepted theory is an explanation that generally is accepted to be true until falsified.
I agree that my relationship with God is based on faith, but since that initial act of faith of believing that Jesus is the son of God and confessing Him as Lord of my life, I have become a witness to His reality.
Let's put it like this, let's say for argument that there is a murder trial, and there is no body, and all the prosecution has is very little evidence and the evidence doesn't link to the suspect, but they present theory as to what happened, do you think the suspect would be convicted? Now, what if the prosecutor has an actual witness to the murder testify to as to what happened and point to the suspect as the killer, the witness is unshakable and very credible do you think there would be a conviction then?
My point is that I am a witness to the goodness of God. You don't have to believe me, but I have experienced His mercy and grace in my life.
No I'm waiting for your usual MO of making fun, and calling names:):):)
Frank,
Let me ask you about logic fallacies.
Tell me if this is a logic fallacy:
1. If it is raining, then it must be cloudy outside.
2. It's cloudy outside
3. Therefore, it must be raining.
In the last post I meant logical fallacies.
Your logical fallacy is also known as "affirming the consequent", and as any first year philosophy student learns, it is a logical fallacy of the form:
1. If P then Q.
2. Q
3. Therefore P.
If you are going to try and use symbolic logic in your arguments against evolution, you better come to the table ready, because this is something I studied. :)
*Microevolution (Moths change shades) occurs. Therefore, macroevolution must have occurred. (logical fallacy)
By true scientific standards, is evolution even a theory? A scientific theory is defined as a “theory that explains scientific observations; scientific theories must be falsifiable right?” How can you falsify the theory of evolution? In order for a scientific theory to be valid, there must exist some test that can prove it either right or wrong, and without putting the theory to a test, one can never prove it true or false!
Evolution must be able to be observed and also be able to be put to the test. Because there have not been any observed examples of macro-evolution on record, the first condition is not met. Those who support this theory state that most major evolutionary changes happened millions of years ago. Past events are not testable and, therefore, evolution is also not falsifiable.
Another logical fallacy is to say that you can't be a creationist and scientist, or someone is anti-science if they are a Christian.
1. If we found dinosaurs and humans next to each other in the same rock formation, then they must have lived at the same time.
2. We do not find them next to each other in the same rock formation.
3. Therefore, they did not live at the same time.
(logical fallacy)
1.If evolution were true, we would expect to see similarities in DNA of all organisms on earth.
2.We do see similarities in DNA of all organisms on earth.
3. Therefore, evolution must be true.
(logical fallacy)
1.If the big bang is true, then we would expect to see a cosmic microwave background.
2.We do see a cosmic microwave background.
3.Therefore, the big bang must be true.
(logical fallacy)
“The Bible cannot be true because it teaches that the earth is only thousands of years old; whereas, we know the earth is billions of years old.”
(logical fallacy)
"*Microevolution (Moths change shades) occurs. Therefore, macroevolution must have occurred. (logical fallacy)"
Where did you get this argument?
Please cite your sources.
No scientist made it, I can assure you.
The same goes for the rest of your silly statements. They are not from scientists, they are from your head, purposely using logical fallacies to try and disprove an argument that no one is making.
We call call that intellectual dishonesty.
Now try again. Use sources.
And please, don't use words like "falsify" if you don't even know what they mean. It is embarrassing to read your ideas about what theories are.
"The word theory, in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty. It means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" (Barnhart 1948). In the case of the theory of evolution, the following are some of the phenomena involved. All are facts:
* Life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago;
* Life forms have changed and diversified over life's history;
* Species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors;
* Natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species change. "
(http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA201.html)
If you want to falsify evolution, you most certainly can... Please do your homework before making such an absurd statement.
"There are many conceivable lines of evidence that could falsify evolution. For example:
* a static fossil record;
* true chimeras, that is, organisms that combined parts from several different and diverse lineages (such as mermaids and centaurs) and which are not explained by lateral gene transfer, which transfers relatively small amounts of DNA between lineages, or symbiosis, where two whole organisms come together;
* a mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating;
* observations of organisms being created. "
(http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA211.html)
Thank you for playing.
If you want to read about what the Big Bang theory ACTUALLY is, instead of your silly reader's digest version, you might look here:
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html#CMBR
You really need to understand that the big bang THEORY is not PROVEN by any one thing, ie: your silly "logical fallacy". But rather, it is a theory with lots of evidence to support the things that such a theory predicts. That's how it works... you don't have to like it, but you don't get to reinvent the rules and make things up just because YOU don't like or understand the science.
Gary's is based on data and yours is based on superstition.
(logical fallacy)
Here is a prophecy about Christ, over a thousand years before his birth
Isaiah 53
1 Who has believed our message
and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
3 He was despised and rejected by men,
a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering.
Like one from whom men hide their faces
he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
4 Surely he took up our infirmities
and carried our sorrows,
yet we considered him stricken by God,
smitten by him, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.
6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed and afflicted,
yet he did not open his mouth;
he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before her shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.
8 By oppression [a] and judgment he was taken away.
And who can speak of his descendants?
For he was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people he was stricken. [b]
9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth.
10 Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the LORD makes [c] his life a guilt offering,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.
11 After the suffering of his soul,
he will see the light of life [d] and be satisfied [e] ;
by his knowledge [f] my righteous servant will justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, [g]
and he will divide the spoils with the strong, [h]
because he poured out his life unto death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors
Its redundant... but you clearly are just quoting someone else when you talk about what you call macro-evolution.
You might want to actually read up on a complex topic before tossing it around as if you actually know what it means. Here are a few starting points:
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/325/5947/1512
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VIADefinition.shtml
Please stop using big words and scientific terms that you want to redefine to your own use. It is insulting to scientists that work hard to be precise and unambiguous about their usage.
If you want to have your faith, that's fine... but please stop pretending that your "faith" is capable of withstanding scientific arguments. It just diminishes your arguments about the strength of your faith when you try to use a discipline where it is bound to fail in your attempts to give it value.
OMG, someone prophesied that someone was going to be born!!! OMG!
FAIL.
Then again, you would have to demonstrate that was even written before christ was reportedly born.
Good luck.
"Gary's is based on data and yours is based on superstition.
(logical fallacy)
"
ps: That's not a logical fallacy.
It is just something you disagree with.
Stop using words you don't understand.
"*Microevolution (Moths change shades) occurs. Therefore, macroevolution must have occurred. (logical fallacy)"
Frank over a year ago you said that micro evolution has been observed, and that was your argument for evolution.
Macro-evolution has never been observed, and what happened in the past can't be falsified.
Falsifiable is the ability to refute by observation or a physical experiment.
"Gary's is based on data and yours is based on superstition."
It is a fallacy, because you said that I based mine on superstition. This remark is the fallacy of the question-begging epithet because it uses biased language (and not logic)If you said that mine was based on the Bible then it wouldn't have been a fallacy
Frank wrote
" OMG, someone prophesied that someone was going to be born!!! OMG!
FAIL.
Then again, you would have to demonstrate that was even written before christ was reportedly born."
Did you read the entire scripture, there is no question that this was describing the birth, death and resurrection of Christ. I might add that science has dated this book at about the 8th century B.C.
Isaiah 7:14 (NIV) Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.
Another fallacy is to say that real scientists accept the theory of evolution, or even if you say can't believe in creation and be a scientist. You can say many scientists accept evolution, but once you add real to the argument then it becomes a logic fallacy.
Stephen Jay Gould, in his
article, "Evolution as Fact and Theory" in the May 1981 issue of
Discover Magazine, attempted to refute creationism by saying, "We
have abundant, direct, observational evidence of evolution in action, from both the field and the laboratory." His point:
evolution is an irrefutable fact, and creationists ignore this
certainty.
Yet, the evidence he cited supported only microevolution,
involving changes that take place within separate species, and not macro-evolution or one species evolving into a new species.
Creationists have no contention with the concept of microevolution.
You wanted a link of a top scientist passed off micro-evolution as
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html
Frank's so-called facts:
* Life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago;
(tell me how is it known to be true by actual experience or observation that life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago, you said that it is fact, so tell us how this could be considered a fact) a fact is a concept whose truth can be proved; "scientific hypotheses are not fact"
* Life forms have changed and diversified over life's history;
(the only observable changes in lifeforms have been on the micro level, in other words it is not a fact that species have evolved into completely different species (macro-evolution)Creationists believe in what scientists would call micro-evolution, and believe God created that way so that there would be diversity within the species.
* Species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors;
(again this is not a fact but is just a supposition, there is no observable evidence of this actually to have happened.)
I won't even call evolution a theory anymore, because even by scientific standards it doesn't meet the criteria. It is just a supposition:)
I posted what the Bible says about the end times, and we appear to be living in those end times. It is just as valid to discuss what Bible prophesies will happen, as the use of any data, book, publication. This blog is meant to be a public discourse (verbal exchange of ideas) about all things that Gary Fong considers to be controversial.
fjblau...like many who despise the Bible, want to prevent the Bible from being used as part of any discussion related to the economy, the state of the world, and will use angry, hateful, language to attack those people and the Bible because they even posted such a comment.
Here is what fjblau posted here after Charles and My comment:
"Hubris and idiocy, perfectly combined."
So, it appears to fjblau that we are idiots because we believe the Bible.
Here is another post by fjblau revealing his obvious bias:
"Gary's is based on data and yours is based on superstition."
you see with these people if we believe in the Bible we are idiots, because we believe in a book of superstitions.
I have presented an Old Testament prophecy "Isaiah 7:14 (NIV) Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel." which should obvious to the reader is referring to the virgin birth of Jesus, but fjblau didn't even respond to it.
So-called facts of the so-called evolution theory as posted by fjblau:
* Life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago;
* Life forms have changed and diversified over life's history;
* Species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors;
* Natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species change. "
A FACT is a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true:
So, fjblau tell us how the above are facts? How are they known to be true to observation and experience?
Frank must be studying more, because he has disappeared:):):)
"So, fjblau tell us how the above are facts? How are they known to be true to observation and experience?"
I don't suppose you actually looked into that, did you?
You are just digging yourself into a deeper hole of ignorance Tim. Why not stop changing the subject every time you can't carry on with an academic discussion?
As for your prophecy silliness... you DO know that the English language didn't really exist 2000 years ago, right? So your "prophecy" is nothing more than a wishful translation of something that you haven't even demonstrated was written that long ago.
In any case, it fails the "prophecy" test because it says nothing that any ordinary person could have guessed (wow, someone will be born, and will die!) , in language that is so generic it could apply to anything or anyone. Not a very good prophecy.
Nice try.
"Macro-evolution has never been observed, and what happened in the past can't be falsified.
Falsifiable is the ability to refute by observation or a physical experiment."
You REALLY don't know what "falsifiable" means in terms of science if you put those two sentences together. REALLY. FAIL.
"fjblau...like many who despise the Bible, want to prevent the Bible from being used as part of any discussion related to the economy, the state of the world, and will use angry, hateful, language to attack those people and the Bible because they even posted such a comment."
Oh stop whining. You are perfectly free to use your silly cult texts to talk about whatever you want. And I am free to mock it for its superstition and lack of academic rigor when you (again) fail to use it as an authoritative source for secular science.
"A FACT is a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true"
You do know what the ord "or" means, right?
You do know what the word "observation" means to a scientist, right?
Because really, I am not so sure you do, given that you are trying to use this as evidence (another word you don't understand) of creationism...
Do you REALLY want to to go down the intellectual path of "the only true things are things observed by humans that are alive today?" route? Really? Think about that very carefully before answering.
"you see with these people if we believe in the Bible we are idiots, because we believe in a book of superstitions."
No Tim, you are not idiotic for believing in the Bible.
You are idiotic for trying to argue about science using a theological source for your evidence... and pretending that you are even discussing things scientifically.
I have ALWAYS said here that I am more than happy to talk about philosophy with you with regards to religion. I am more than happy to talk about god and my own spirituality.
What I am NOT willing to do is accept your subjective theology as a basis for rational science.
I am sorry that your theology conflicts to completely with science, and even sorrier that you keep thinking you can make it so by changing SCIENCE and the words used in science to fit your personal meanings.
My personal theology doesn't conflict with science, so I don't suffer from that same dissonance that you continue to demonstrate here.
But again, if you want to talk theology, philosophy or spirtuality, I'm all ears.
In the future, if you're going to make a statement about what a scientist thinks about evolution, please cite a source... because I am really tired of you rephrasing things to make it sound like they are something that a scientist said, when in reality, they are nothing more than your own ideas about what science is.
I have tried really hard to stick with actual cited works and quotes from sources that have been reviewed by other scientists.
Your paraphrasing of the ideas that you are talking about isn't doing your arguments any service.
My faith doesn't conflict with science either. I believe that God created everything anyway, and all physical laws were created by God.
Frank wrote:
"As for your prophecy silliness... you DO know that the English language didn't really exist 2000 years ago, right? So your "prophecy" is nothing more than a wishful translation of something that you haven't even demonstrated was written that long ago."
Actually Isaiah has been dated back to the 8th century BC by scientists. It amazes me how you can accept that life appeared in the world 3 billion years ago, but you can't accept that the book of Isaiah dates back to over 800 years before Christ. This is an example of your obvious bias.
Frank wrote:
"In any case, it fails the "prophecy" test because it says nothing that any ordinary person could have guessed (wow, someone will be born, and will die!) , in language that is so generic it could apply to anything or anyone. Not a very good prophecy."
Frank read this:
Isaiah 7:14 (NIV) Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.
So, you are saying that the prophecy of a virgin birth of a son who will be call Immanuel is a usual birth?
Frank wrote:
"You REALLY don't know what "falsifiable" means in terms of science if you put those two sentences together"
This is a logical fallacy on your part again, because I have given you the definition of falsifiable, and rather then answer the questions you are directing the argument against me (an example of Ad Hominem: Logical Fallacy)
Falsifiability (or refutability) is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then this can be shown by observation or experiment
Logical Fallacies: Ad Hominem: The phrase ad hominem is Latin and means “to the man.” The fallacy is so named because it directs an argument against the person making a claim rather than the claim itself.
Again you are attacking my knowledge without answering why you accept that it is a fact that life appeared on earth 3 billion years ago. You see I contend that all of the so-called facts that are the pillars of so-called theory of evolution are not facts at all. Most are logical fallacies!!!
"Macro-evolution has never been observed, and what happened in the past can't be falsified."
Tell how you can falsify (refute) macro-evolution in the past through observation and experimentation?
Frank read this:
Isaiah 7:14 (NIV) Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.
I'm posting again Frank, tell me how this prophecy could be so generic that it could apply to anyone?
A Logical Fallacy From Talk Origin:
"1. There are no human fossils or artifacts found with dinosaurs, and there are no dinosaur fossils found with human fossils (except birds, which are descended from dinosaurs; out-of-place human traces such as the Paluxy footprints do not withstand examination). Furthermore, there is an approximately sixty-four-million-year gap in the fossil record when there are neither dinosaur nor human fossils. If humans and dinosaurs coexisted, traces of the two should be found in the same time places. At the very least, there should not be such a dramatic separation between them.
2.If dinosaurs and humans were found together, it would not be evidence against evolution."
Frank you want a source so here it is:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH710.html
The above is an example of the logic fallacy of affirming the consequent, what I find so funny about this claim is that they even try to protect evolution in case dinosaurs and humans are found together.
Remember the earlier example of this logical fallacy? this is what I posted earlier:
1.If we found dinosaurs and humans next to each other in the same rock formation, then they must have lived at the same time.
2. We do not find them next to each other in the same rock formation.
3.Therefore, they did not live at the same time.
The first issue to consider is what we actually find in the fossil record.
~95% of all fossils are shallow marine organisms, such as corals and shellfish.
~95% of the remaining 5% are algae and plants.
~95% of the remaining 0.25% are invertebrates, including insects.
The remaining 0.0125% are vertebrates, mostly fish. (95% of land vertebrates consist of less than one bone, and 95% of mammal fossils are from the Ice Age.
The number of dinosaur fossils is actually relatively small, compared to other types of creatures.
Vertebrates are not as common as other types of life-forms. This makes sense of these percentages and helps us understand why vertebrates, including dinosaurs, are so rare and even overwhelmed by marine organisms in the record.
Richard Dawkins: The recurrent laryngeal nerve is a remarkable piece of unintelligent design. The nerve starts in the head, with the brain, and the end organ is the larynx, the voice box. But instead of going straight there it goes looping past the voice box. In the case of the giraffe, it goes down the full length of the giraffe's neck, loops down one of the main arteries in the chest and then comes straight back up again to the voice box, having gone within a couple of inches of the voice box on its way down. No intelligent designer would ever have done that.
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/10/darwins_pitbull_richard_dawkin.html
This is a logical fallacy because He is implying that it is a example of unintelligent design and not of a creator. This is an example of a Bifurcation Logical Fallacy. This argument presents us with only two options: either evolution by natural causes, or a creator. This is one of the most common logical fallacies of evolutionists employ to
Here are several examples of bifurcation logical fallacies that evolutionists use.
“Either you have faith or you are rational.”
“I could never live by faith because I am a rational person.”
“faith vs. reason”
“science or religion”
“Bible vs. science”
These are all false dilemmas.
This type of logical fallacy is used by fjblau quite often:)
An excerpt from Richard Dawkins book "The God Delusion"
"Although Jesus probably existed, reputable biblical scholars do not in general regard the New Testament (and obviously not the Old Testament) as a reliable record of what actually happened in history, and I shall not consider the Bible further as evidence for any kind of deity. (p. 97)
This is an example of the Logical Fallacy: Faulty Appeal to Authority. Notice he says "reputable biblical scholars do not in general regard the New Testament (and obviously not the Old Testament) as a reliable record of what actually happened in history" implying that biblical scholars that do regard the New Testament as a reliable record aren't reputable.
What ever happen to Frank:):):)
How's about today's news Tim:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/10/14/darwinopterus.dinosaur.fossil/index.html
Once again, science passes you by.
'So, you are saying that the prophecy of a virgin birth of a son who will be call Immanuel is a usual birth?"
As for your "prophecy" of a "virgin birth"... you would also have to demonstrate that it actually happened. Or for starters.... was even CAPABLE of happening. We're waiting... (And if you're going to quote the bible to prove the bible, I'm going to laugh at you.)
But considering that the book of Isaiah wasn't even written solely by someone named Isaiah in a single point in time, I'm not terribly interested in the veracity of his "claims" anyways. You are just quoting a translation of a translation of what was probably a verbal transcription of a language not even spoken anymore. Yawn.
And while you are at it... can you explain why you think IF we found evidence of dinosaurs and humans together (even though we haven't) that it would somehow falsify evolution? I fail to see how it would... It would change a lot about the TIMELINE (hypothetically) and a lot of other things... but it would do nothing to falsify the theory. But again, its a hypothetical. You're free to ignore it... like I do things like "virgin births" and "resurrections".
And please, also respond to the article posted at the top here. You do a find job of changing the subject every time you can't answer a question... its tiresome.
The FACT remains that Evolution is settled science, and there are NO peer-reviewed natural scientists that dispute it. None. Yes there are a few crackpots... but not one of them is a peer-reviewed scientist on the topic.
There has been NO falsification of the core ideas of natural selection. You're welcome to try, but you'd be the first to succeed if you were able to do so.
You will just lose more every day (as today's CNN article demonstrates) as you cling to the absurd notion that science is going to disprove evolution and prove your superstitious theology.
You still have no idea what science is. The rest of your nonsensical claims about logic are too twisted to even decipher.
Heck, I'm not even convinced you know what logic is... given how you try and use it here.
ps: The name "Immanuel" means "god with us" and it is not a name but rather a designation of title.
So a prediction that a messiah will be born named Immanuel is a little like predicting that someone will become President and will be referred to as "Mr. President".
Not exactly a "prophecy".
They are both still Pterodactyls. We can right now observe differences in dogs, long tail dogs, short tail dogs, long floppy ear dogs, dogs with short ears, long hair dogs, short haired dogs, no hair dogs. I'm sorry but your find is nothing, that is not seen in the world today. I'm surprised that you are so excited about nothing.
Frank wrote
"As for your "prophecy" of a "virgin birth"... you would also have to demonstrate that it actually happened. Or for starters.... was even CAPABLE of happening. We're waiting... (And if you're going to quote the bible to prove the bible, I'm going to laugh at you.)"
Actually Frank there was eye-witness testimony of the life of Jesus written by those who actually lived during the time of Christ. You don't have to believe what was written, but you don't have the right to also make fun of those who do believe the Bible. You see the contradiction is that you expect me to demonstrate that the virgin birth actually happened, yet you don't have to demonstrate to me how it is a fact that life appeared 2 billion years ago!!!
Frank wrote:
But considering that the book of Isaiah wasn't even written solely by someone named Isaiah in a single point in time, I'm not terribly interested in the veracity of his "claims" anyways. You are just quoting a translation of a translation of what was probably a verbal transcription of a language not even spoken anymore. Yawn.
Isaiah was written in HEBREW, you ask for a prophecy that wasn't generic as you would call it. You have every right to falsify the book of Isaiah, now give us the evidence that falsifies the book of Isaiah.
Frank wrote
"The FACT remains that Evolution is settled science, and there are NO peer-reviewed natural scientists that dispute it. None. Yes there are a few crackpots... but not one of them is a peer-reviewed scientist on the topic."
(Logical Fallacy: Faulty Appeal to Authority)You are saying that just because peer reviewed scientists say that evolution is true, then it has to be true. You see the problem with this argument is that if I say that all respected pastors say the Bible is true, so that it must be true.
You called scientists who dispute evolution crackpots, how does that demonstrate whether evolution is true or not. (clearly the fallacy of the question-begging epithe)It amazes me that you actually were able to include two different logical fallacies in the same paragraph.
Frank wrote:
And while you are at it... can you explain why you think IF we found evidence of dinosaurs and humans together (even though we haven't) that it would somehow falsify evolution? I fail to see how it would... It would change a lot about the TIMELINE (hypothetically) and a lot of other things... but it would do nothing to falsify the theory.
The point of the argument is to show a logical fallacy in that part of the so-called theory, just because a few dinosaur fossils, and human fossils are not found together doesn't prove they didn't actually exist at the same time.
You can't even show how it is a fact that life appeared on earth 2 billion years ago, Darwin originally said that life appear 400 million years ago, or how it is a fact that species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors. Remember you were the one that said these were facts. A fact is a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true. Now tell me how these so-called facts are known to be true.
Frank wrote
"ps: The name "Immanuel" means "god with us" and it is not a name but rather a designation of title.
So a prediction that a messiah will be born named Immanuel is a little like predicting that someone will become President and will be referred to as "Mr. President".
Not exactly a "prophecy"."
You neglected to mention He would be born of a virgin birth. Actually there are many prophecies in the old testament about Jesus.
You don't even know what the word Prophecy means do you?
Secular science publications already have a bias against creationism, and will not publish the work of creationists to even receive a peer review. Peer Pressure:):):)
Logical Fallacies: Faulty Appeal to Authority
Let me give some examples of this type of logical fallacy and explain why it is a logical fallacy.
1. Bill believes X.
2. Therefore, X is true.
“Dr. Bill has a PhD in biology, and he believes in evolution.”
Another type of faulty appeal to authority is the appeal to the majority. This is when a person argues that a claim must be true simply because most people believe it. But, of course, just because a majority of people believe something does not make it so. History is replete with examples of when the majority was totally wrong. Truth is not decided by a vote, after all. This fallacy is so obvious it is hard to believe that people would fall for it. But there is something very psychologically seductive about the appeal to the majority. We are inclined to think, “How could all those people be wrong?” Of course, it could well be the case that many people in that majority are convinced of the claim at issue for exactly the same reason: because all the other people in that majority believe it (which is no logical reason at all.) The appeal to the majority is often combined with the appeal to an expert—an appeal to the majority of experts. Evolutionists often commit this double-fallacy; they try to support their case by pointing out: “The vast majority of scientists believe in evolution. (Therefore, evolution is very likely to be true).” Or, like Frank who commented that "NO peer-reviewed natural scientists that dispute it. None. Yes there are a few crackpots... but not one of them is a peer-reviewed scientist on the topic." However, simply adding two fallacies together does not form a good argument! Again, we could point to many historical examples of cases where the scientific consensus was dead wrong. Yet, people continue to perpetuate this fallacy.
From Talk origins:
"Biological classification is hierarchical; when a new species evolves, it branches at the very lowermost level, and it remains part of all groups it is already in. Anything that evolves from a fruit fly, no matter how much it diverges, would still be classified as a fruit fly, a dipteran, an insect, an arthropod, an animal, and so forth."
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910_1.html
So, using the above logic, if all living creatures evolved from a common ancestor, why aren't we all classified with the common ancestor that we evolved from? this is clearly a dishonest attempt to downplay the fact that there was actually no evolution of the fruit fly into another creature or higher life form.
Romans 1:25-28
25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
I'm sorry the scripture for the previous post is Romans 1:25-32
Frank, could this be why many scientists are afraid to speak up against evolution?
SEATTLE–The demotion of a well-published evolutionary biologist critical of Darwinian evolution has been found to be religiously and politically motivated, according to a new government report.
The U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform released a staff report titled, “Intolerance and the Politicization of Science at the Smithsonian: Smithsonian’s Top Officials Permit the Demotion and Harassment of Scientist Skeptical of Darwinian Evolution.” The report details the persecution of Dr. Richard Sternberg, whose civil and constitutional rights were violated by Smithsonian officials when he published a peer-reviewed article by Dr. Stephen Meyer criticizing Darwinian evolution and supporting intelligent design.
“After two years of denials and stonewalling by Smithsonian bureaucrats, a congressional investigation now confirms a campaign of harassment and smears against evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg, whose only ‘crime’ was his honest skepticism of Darwinian dogma,” said John West, vice president of public policy and legal affairs at the Center for Science & Culture. “It’s outrageous that the federal government would sanction such blatant discrimination. This is clearly an infringement of Dr. Sternberg’s free speech rights.”
According to the report, Sternberg said, “[I]t is clear that I was targeted for retaliation and harassment explicitly because … I allowed a scientific article to be published critical of neo-Darwinism, and that was considered an unpardonable heresy.” The staff investigation validates this claim and documents the evidence in detail.
Findings of the investigation include:
Officials at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History “explicitly acknowledged in emails their intent to pressure Sternberg to resign because of his role in the publication of the Meyer paper and his views on evolution.” They wanted “to make Dr. Sternberg’s life at the Museum as difficult as possible and encourage him to leave.”
“NMNH officials conspired with a special interest group to publicly smear Dr. Sternberg; the group was also enlisted to monitor Sternberg’s outside activities in order to find a way to dismiss him.”
“The hostility toward Dr. Sternberg at the NMNH was reinforced by anti-religious and political motivations.” NMNH scientists demanded to know whether Sternberg “was religious,” “was a Republican,” “was a fundamentalist,” and whether “he was a conservative.”
The investigation concludes, “This is discrimination, plain and simple. The abject failure of the Secretary and Deputy Secretary to protect the basic rights of Dr. Sternberg to a civil work environment is indefensible.”
“Given the attitudes expressed in these emails, scientists who are known to be skeptical of Darwinian theory, whatever their qualifications or research record, cannot expect to receive equal treatment or consideration by NMNH officials.”
I've noticed that Frank still has not answered my questions as to how it is a known fact that life appeared on earth 2 billion years ago, or how is known to be true that species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors. I'm all ears Frank:):):)
Tim, thanks for caring enough to attempt bringing forth the truth of God. The simplicity and clarity lies in the following facts. We each and all fall short of the standard that God has set, and has a right to set, and that failure has to be dealt with, and has been dealt with by the death of God's only Son. fjblau is blind to it, and logic/reasoning will never be the path to awareness. His mind is blinded by unbelief and the veil can only be removed by believing and receiving God's gift of forgiveness, provided by His death, and substitution. His death and resurrection are facts, not superstitions. All will one day know and acknowledge that. His atonement and His offer of eternal life is there for the receiving, but we humans love darkness and will not come to the light. Pray that all believers will preach Jesus and Him crucified, with power and clarity.
Post a Comment